Okay, my current TODO list for this proposal:
-Make the change to the UNAWARE verdict mentioned below.
-Slightly expand the Arbitor's new jurisdiction to include everything
currently in eir jurisdiction.
-Fully pragmatise appeals.
-Aris
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM Aris Merchant <
Hmm. What if I make it stronger, as in “The Defendant could not reasonably
have been expected to know that the Act was ILEGAL”? That way it only
applies in cases that are really well and truly ambiguous.
-Aris
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:42 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Yeah, it's the rule of lenity from
Yeah, it's the rule of lenity from criminal law. I'm fine with you having
it in if you want (I'm barely even a player of this game at this point) but
given that this system is so discretionary anyway I don't see that we need
it. I instituted appeals by CFJ because they're worth having but a
I can split it off into a separate proposal. It’s something we’ve used
successfully before, however. It basically says that if the rule is
ambiguous, the ambiguity is resolved in the favor of the defendant unless
there’s already a CFJ somewhere clearing it up. Still want it separated?
-Aris
On
please remove UNAWARE from this, that basically removes interpretation of
criminal rules entirely.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:23 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, here's a proto of my criminal justice reform. Again, D Margaux,
> sorry for the duplication of
Okay, here's a proto of my criminal justice reform. Again, D Margaux,
sorry for the duplication of effort. I borrowed one of your ideas (the
one about the time when tardiness happens needing to be defined), so
I've added you as a coauthor.
-Aris
---
Title: Criminal Justice Reform Act
Adoption
Sigh. I had something a bit broader than this that’s almost ready to post,
and I just hadn’t gotten to looking it over and sending it out. Sorry about
that. I wouldn’t suggest retracting this. I’ll post mine and we’ll see what
the response is like. Again, my apologies.
-Aris
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018
I think the current ruleset is missing the amendment from proposal 8090
below. Just wanted to flag for the next FLR/SLR.
-- Forwarded message -
From: Timon Walshe-Grey
Date: Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:41 AM
Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8090-8093
To:
The eighth point should be eir behalf, zombies are still people.
On Wed., 24 Oct. 2018, 11:22 am D. Margaux, wrote:
> I submit and pend the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: Criminal Justice Adjustments Act
> AI: 2
> Author: D Margaux
>
> [Purpose is to streamline and clarify the conditions
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh for crying out loud. I object to everything. To everything, literally.
I object.
It seems like it's the final stage before you turn abject.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Thanks for this. Not sure how I missed the parenthetical about ineffective
actions—that makes a lot of sense. And the history is very interesting!
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:08 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> So first, No Faking explicitly equates knowingly doing INEFFECTIVE actions
> with lying:
>
So first, No Faking explicitly equates knowingly doing INEFFECTIVE actions
with lying:
> (or, in the case of an action, not to be effective)
which implies that "not to be effective" is qualitatively different enough
from a "lie" so that it has to be specified as counting as Faking. But we
do
On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I have no idea if such things are INEFFECTIVE acts, or simply statements of
> opinion.
After some more thought—maybe an INEFFECTIVE action could also be a “lie” if it
is intended to deceive.
For example, what if a player with a zombie
Interesting. R2124 governs "objections to dependent actions". Nothing in the
rules says anything about objections to non-dependent actions.
I have no idea if such things are INEFFECTIVE acts, or simply statements of
opinion.
If taken as Acts, such objections are not R2125 restricted (don't
CFJ 1631 decided that subject lines are inconsequential and that intents
must be announced in the body.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 11:10 D. Margaux wrote:
> I object to the subject line of twg’s email of 1:00 PM EST in case it is
> an intent.
>
> I object to the subject line of this message that I
Perhaps e is announcing an intent to change eir position on everything,
including, for example, eir player status.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 11:06 D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking", by publishing
> the patently false statement in the quoted message. There are clearly many
> things that e does not object to - for example, eir status as a player of
Gaelan—winning the game would break your pledge! It would allow the PM to
appoint you to an office (speaker).
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:18 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I do the action incorporated in my modification of the title.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Oct 22, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
